Well, I see you like to do the old- copy and paste every comment I make, before responding to them. I'm not a big fan of that, because not only does it make the whole thing longer, it seems to imply that I'm not smart enough to get which of my comments you're responding to. I know what I said, I don't need it repeated back to me. I've debated many people on various subjects ).who debate this way, and I just find it demeaning.
I would rather hear your own interpretation of what you learned out of the link, (it likely won't be as feeble as you think). If you can't describe it in your own words, that tells me you don't fully understand it yourself. I'm a simple man. I need things simplified as much as possible for me to get it. Especially if the subject itself is complex.
So, there are many species of fish. I get that. But whatever you want to call the "broad category", whether it's genus, family, or whatever, there has to be a point where one genus crosses over into another. The most famous of all being the "missing link" between apes and man. At some point the fish stopped being a fish, and crossed over to become a Lizard, or something, and so on down the line. But for some reason, all those intermediate subspecies died off, yet all the other species within the genus lived on. So, like I said, even though these missing links died off, we should see millions of fossilized evidence of this, all over the world. Which we do not. I've seen many links over the years that evolutionists like yourself have shown me that try to show this evidence, but it's all very sparse, vague, and dubious at best. You should be able to go to any major museum and look at them yourself, yet they say they keep them locked away and you can't view them, or they simply admit they don't have any at all.
Mutations in humans are the cause of many disabilities like downs syndrome. I've never heard of a mutation that humans have benefitted from. (Other than the milk thing you brought up).
Lastly, to me, just looking at the second law of thermodynamics negates evolution. It things break down over time and are in a constant state of entropy, so how is evolution possible? Yes, I recognize microevolution through adaptation within the genus' is possible, even to the point that people on average are living longer these days, but that still does not prove macroevolution, or a jump from one genus to the next. It's never been observed, and never will be.
